it's an interesting question: how much more productive would we all be if we were all as savvy/literate/productive with computers as some hypothetical comparator (I'm not sure programmers are the right comparison to make)?

for example, i am in operations and strategy, but have always wanted to be more technical because i could see the value for many many tasks. however, the learning curve was steep and so learning and doing other things drove better returns for me.

now, LLMs make learning basic concepts and executing simple tasks extremely easy, and i am realizing a higher level of productivity then previously; i used codex to do a test data migration and then evaluate the data quality. i could simply not have done this previously, but it is a meaningful change for me, that i can execute on this.

there is no maintenance burden: i don't have to keep the code alive. it simply sped up an otherwise manual and non repeated task.

i think that's what's so interesting and concerning about this technology: i think power and productivity will flow more broadly across the workforce. this will result in relative winners and losers, and some who will experience no real change at all.

similarly to the costs and benefits of mobile devices diffusing technology access; it changed some things, it created winners and losers and yet our daily lives are recognizable to someone from 50 or even more years ago.